Wednesday, 19 October 2016

It is a question which
has been the subject of intense debate and disagreement between its supporters
and detractors, a debate which has raged on for decades.

In recent years a steady
flow of evidence has emerged supporting the long held belief of the portrait’s
owners that the Rice Portrait is genuine. And yet the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) continues to deny that
the portrait is either of Jane Austen or by Ozias Humphry, insisting that it
dates from the early nineteenth century. They justify this on the grounds of the dating of the costume and the stamp on the back of the canvas, notwithstanding the evidence that has been produced demonstrating that both dress and stamp could potentially date to before 1800. Why is there such reluctance on the part of the NPG to accept any of this new evidence? Why does the NPG remain so implacably opposed to this portrait being a picture of the young Jane Austen?

Robert Chapman and the
National Portrait Gallery

In the 1930s Austen
studies were dominated by Oxford scholar Robert (RW) Chapman. The Director of
the National Portrait Gallery was Sir Henry Hake and it is clear from reading the
archives at the NPG that the two were working together on the subject of the
Rice Portrait or the Zoffany as it was then known.

RW Chapman

In 1931/32 Henry Hake
tried to acquire the portrait for the NPG. Following the failed attempt to
purchase the portrait, Robert Chapman wrote in a letter to Henry Hake dated 26
October 1932: ‘I never feel happy about this picture, and I know that R.A.
Austen-Leigh is very sceptical.’ He continues: ‘But it is possible that it may
have been commissioned, e.g. by James Leigh Perrot, Jane Austen’s mother’s
brother who was a man of wealth living, for the most part, in Bath’. But as
Chapman said himself, he was no iconographer.

In 1939 Chapman wrote to
Hake: ‘I have finished a small book on Jane Austen, which collects the facts.
But I am not competent to write on the Portraits, being (as Jane says) that I never
saw either, and for other reasons.’

Henry Hake
Director of the NPG

Chapman was also no
fashion expert. He relied on the opinion of Charles Kingsley Adams of the NPG
(later the Director) who reported in 1941 that the dress the girl in the
portrait was wearing must date to after 1805 on the basis of the puffed sleeves
and high waistline. The assessment gave Robert Chapman the ammunition he needed
to justify his antipathy towards the portrait.

In 1948, immediately
after the NPG purchased the ‘Cassandra scribble of her sister’ as Hake called
it, Chapman unequivocally declared in his Jane
Austen Facts and Problems that the Rice portrait ‘had a pedigree that any
layman might think watertight; but it cannot be Jane Austen. It is a portrait
of a young girl which can be dated by the costume to about 1805 (when J.A. was
thirty) or later.’

The timing, immediately
after the NPG had acquired the small portrait of Austen, cannot have been
coincidence. The Rice family had refused to sell their portrait to the Gallery
and all the latter had managed to purchase was a small, inferior amateur
drawing.

From this point on, the
NPG had a motive for downplaying any claim by the Rice family that their
portrait was genuine and to talk up their own picture which they had swiftly
claimed was the only authentic portrait of the novelist. Meanwhile Chapman’s
assessment, based solely on the flawed judgement of CK Adams, continued to be
relied upon and given a weight far greater than it deserved.

Chapman’s 1948
assessment that ‘it cannot be Jane Austen’ was cited by the Jane Austen Society in 1973 when they announced they believed the portrait was not of the
novelist.

Jane Austen Society Report 1973

But in March 1998 the Chairman of the Jane Austen Society, Brian
Southam, wrote to the Director of the NPG about the portrait. He said:

The
Jane Austen Society has itself considered the question of the authenticity of
the Rice/Zoffany portrait on several occasions in the past, each time coming to
a negative verdict. It has to be said, however, that the Society possessed no
expertise in the history of portraiture, fashion and other relevant factors,
and I do not think that anyone would nowadays attach much weight to these past
pronouncements.

Yet Robert Chapman’s
assessment continued to influence the debate about the portrait. Even as late
as 2007 when the portrait failed to sell at auction (of which more later) press
reports at the time repeatedly cited the declaration made by Chapman way back
in 1948, that the style of the dress did not match the date of the portrait.

That the opinion of one
man who was not even in possession of the correct facts at the time – Chapman
thought that the portrait was by Zoffany, and that it may have been
commissioned by James Leigh-Perrot and painted in Bath – was still being quoted
as evidence over sixty years later is quite incredible.

Deirdre Le Faye and the
National Portrait Gallery

Deirdre Le Faye, an
administrator at the British Museum, joined the Jane Austen Society in the
1960s and began researching Jane Austen in earnest in the 1970s.

In many ways Le Faye
assumed the mantle of RW Chapman. Like him, she dominated debate about Austen
for decades and assumed a proprietary interest in the novelist. Like Chapman,
she is also dogmatic in her opinions and she is fiercely critical of anyone who
disagrees with her.

In April 1983 Le
Faye was researching the Rice Portrait and wrote
to John Kerslake at the NPG. She described herself as a ‘devoted
member of the Jane Austen Society’ and explained that she was ‘trying to find
another little girl in the prolific Austen family to whom the picture can be
correctly related.’ Her opinion of the Rice Portrait was clearly already
fixed: ‘I don’t for a moment believe it is a portrait of JA the authoress,’ she
said.

By now, however, John
Kerslake had retired and Richard Walker, archivist at the NPG, replied instead.
He reiterated the opinion of Madeleine Ginsberg of the V&A that the puffed sleeves and high waist on the dress dated the portrait
to around 1805 – 1810. Le Faye replied that
this suited her line of research very well. Of Henry Rice she said condescendingly:

He is now prepared to accept that the picture can't be Zoffany, but still clings to the idea that it is of the genuine Jane Austen; he now considers it might be by Ozias Humphry, because Humphry had Kentish connections and undoubtedly did paint the portrait of Jane's great-uncle Francis Austen which is presently in the Graves Art Gallery, Sheffield. This, however, seems to me an equally unlikely attribution.

In October 1993, Richard Walker, now retired,
wrote to Le Faye again. He had been reading her revised edition
of Jane Austen A Family Recordand was interested to note that she had
not mentioned the Rice Portrait. ‘I imagine, like me, you do not wholeheartedly
believe in it,’ he wrote. But he concluded his letter: ‘I think the costume
experts have been over-confident and the dress she wears could be of the 1790s –
but I am still not convinced she is Jane.’

In 1996 Deirdre Le Faye
published the results of her research. In her article, published in The Book Collector, Le Faye misled her readers by labelling four miniature portraits as specific female members of the Austen family when in fact only one of the portraits, that of Mrs Jane Campion,
was identified - by a piece of paper in the back of the miniature on which was
written ‘Jane Austen who married William Campion’ and the name WS Lethbridge
together with an address in the Strand. Two years later Richard
Walker wrote to Le Faye: ‘I am interested in the Lethbridge idea. He usually
signed and dated on the back of the ivory and I imagine the Kippington
miniatures are so inscribed.’ None of the miniatures were so inscribed. If Le
Faye wrote to tell him so, there is no record of this letter in the NPG
archives. Her
thesis was that the portrait is of a distant relative of Jane Austen's, Mary Anne Campion, and was painted by Matthew
William Peters. Le Faye presented no documentary evidence to support her theory.Nevertheless, Deirdre Le Faye’s
article in The Book Collector received the enthusiastic approval of the 18th Century Curator at the National Portrait
Gallery. Jacob Simon had joined the NPG in 1983 and by the 1990s it is clear
from the documents in the Heinz Archive at the NPG that Jacob Simon and Deirdre
Le Faye had joined forces in their opposition to the picture.

Simon wrote to Le Faye
in September 1996: ‘Your article is brilliant - just what is wanted – and must
be published. Do keep me informed.’ A few months later in January 1997 he
wrote, ‘Delighted to see your article on Jane Austen in published form.
Congratulations. I shall make sure that my colleagues are aware of your
excellent work. And it will be available to future enquirers, of course.’

Deirdre Le Faye's postcard to the NPG

In October 1997 Deirdre
Le Faye wrote a postcard to Jacob Simon enclosing correspondence from Richard
Wheeler who had been campaigning in favour of the picture. On the front of the
postcard were cartoon images from Wind in the Willows showing Toad,
Badger, Ratty and Mole. On the back she wrote: ‘I find the Toad family
portraits more convincing!’

In 2001 Deirdre Le Faye, having retired from the British Museum, wrote to Jacob Simon telling him that ‘research
flourishes’. She was, she said, ‘determined to bring your correct dating to the
attention of the literary world upon every possible occasion!’

On 18 October 2003 an article
appeared in The Times newspaper by Jack Malvern reporting that the portrait was indeed
of Jane Austen. The article reported that this was supported by the opinions of Conall Macfarlane of
Christie’s who believed the portrait was by Ozias Humphry; Regency costume
collectors Lillian and Ted Williams who believed the costume dated to the
eighteenth century; and Austen expert Dr Marilyn Butler, who pointed out that
there were several possible references to the portrait in Austen’s writing.

Deirdre Le Faye
immediately wrote to Conall Macfarlane, disputing his assessment. He replied on
23 October 2003:

Thank
you for your letter of 20th October with the enclosures. I knew of Dr Jacob
Simon’s theories about the dress depicted in the Rice portrait.

I
am afraid I am not entering the lists regarding the sitter in the picture which
I will leave to others better placed than I. My only contribution was to
propose the attribution to Ozias Humphrey [sic], which seems to have gained general
approval subsequently.

Le Faye wrote back to
him:

Dr
Simon as befits an impartial curator at one of the national galleries, is
concerned only with the facts regarding the dating of the canvas; it is Mr Rice
and his family, with a financial interest in the portrait, who invent theories
regarding the dress of the sitter and like to claim the picture is by Ozias
Humphrey [sic]. My years of likewise impartial research into the Austen family
background have convinced me that the sitter is Mary Anne Campion.

On the enclosed copy of
her letter to Conall Macfarlane which she sent to the NPG she wrote ‘Jacob: I
thought CMacf’s muddle-headed letter deserved a clarifying response. Le Faye also sent a postcard
to Jacob Simon on which she wrote: ‘Enclosed copy for your interest/amusement -
do you know this Conal MacF? I assume he must be a new recruit to Christie’s,
unaware of the background controversy.’

In fact Conall
Macfarlane, who studied at the V&A, had been at Christie’s since the 1970s
and had been a Director since 1991. But Le Faye’s comment is instructive – she
clearly assumed that anyone who knew about the portrait’s history would not
have the temerity to disagree with her or with Jacob Simon of the NPG.

Le Faye also launched a
scathing criticism of Dr Butler, and claimed that she had ‘allowed her
friendship with the owner of this picture to outweigh considerations of
scholarly impartiality when assessing evidence.’ A remarkable statement, in the
light of Le Faye’s longstanding and ongoing campaign against this portrait,
which has been anything but impartial.

Deirdre Le Faye
continues to maintain that the portrait is of Mary Anne Campion and that it was
painted by Matthew William Peters. In her latest edition of her Chronology of Jane Austen and her Family, published in 2013, she presents her theory
as if it were fact, and yet he only citation is her own article in The Book Collector. Her theory, supported by Jacob Simon, managed to gain some traction over the
years, yet my own research has shown that the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

It seems that, just as
with Dr Robert Chapman, Deirdre Le Faye’s opinions were given more credit than
was warranted, simply due to her stature in Austen circles.

Henry Rice and the
National Portrait Gallery

Meanwhile, the owners of
the portrait were initially oblivious, or at least inattentive, to criticism of
their portrait.

Henry Rice

Edward Rice inherited
the portrait from his father Henry Edward Harcourt Rice in 1943 and the
painting hung at his home Dane Court until his death thirty years later. In
1973 Henry Rice inherited Dane Court on the death of his father, Edward. The
entire contents of the house had been removed by Henry’s step-mother but she
was unable to take the portrait which was entailed to him. Two years later
Henry Rice sold Dane Court and he and his wife Anne moved to Guernsey, taking
the portrait with them.

In 1983 Henry and Anne
Rice returned to England. By now it was apparent that the portrait faced
serious opposition and Henry began a
campaign to prove that the portrait was indeed of Jane Austen the novelist. It
was a fight which would continue for the rest of his life.

Henry Rice proposed that the portrait was not by Zoffany but by the lesser
known artist Ozias Humphry which, as noted above, had also been suggested by Conall Macfarlane of Christie’s.

In 1985 the National
Portrait Gallery published their directory, Regency Portraits, compiled
by Richard Walker. In his book, Walker tried to keep a foot in both camps by
stating that the portrait was by Ozias Humphry but that the dress dated it to
around 1805. (This was not possible as Humphry was functionally blind by 1797.)

Richard Walker had been
curator at the Palace of Westminster for 26 years and was also official art
adviser to the Government from 1949 until 1976. For the following nine years he
was employed at the National Portrait Gallery as cataloguer in the NPG archive.
An unassuming man, Walker had a passion for cataloguing and research. He wrote
to Henry Rice that he would try to be as impartial as possible and he seems to
have been true to his word.

Ozias Humphry

Despite having written
to Deirdre Le Faye in 1983 that the costume experts dated the portrait to after
1805, Richard Walker wrote to Madeleine Marsh in March 1985 that he thought she
was ‘on the right track with the attribution to Ozias Humphry. It fits very
well with his style of painting and your research shows that he would have been
a likely artist to have been employed by the family.’

Walker was apparently
convinced by BOTH the costume experts’ opinion AND Henry Rice's research which explains his contradictory entry in Regency Portraits
that year.

In December 1985 Richard
Walker visited Henry Rice at his home to examine the portrait. Afterwards he
wrote to thank Henry for the visit. He went on to say:

I
must say I do think your research team has done admirable work and clearly we
must all be less adamant in our opposition to her identification as Jane. It
looks as though there is a distinct possibility of the ‘experts’ being mistaken
in rigorously brushing aside any suggestion that it should be earlier than
1800.

And as recorded above,
in 1993 he told Deirdre Le Faye that he thought the costume could date to the
1790s. In a report, written in October 1993, Richard Walker wrote: ‘I myself, inexcusably
dazzled by all these formidable authorities, accepted the costume objection and
upheld it in my Regency Portraits of 1984.’

He went on to note that
a great deal of research had been carried out by Henry Rice with ‘the disconcerting result that the costume experts may well have been
over-confident in their judgement.’

At some point in the 1980s,
Henry Rice attended a meeting with Jacob Simon at the National Portrait Gallery
to discuss the portrait. I have been unable to find any record of this in the
Heinz Archive but according to the recollection of Henry’s widow, Anne Rice,
the meeting did not go well. Henry Rice apparently took great offence at Jacob
Simon’s opinion that the portrait was not of Jane Austen. From that point on it
seems that the dispute became entrenched on both sides. This would perhaps explain why Jacob
Simon went to such great lengths to oppose the portrait. In February 1994, art critic and curator Angus Stewart organised an exhibition at Olympia, London, under the title 'Jane Austen and her Family'. The exhibition gathered together a large array of artefacts, paintings and documents relating to Jane Austen's life and included the Rice Portrait, which also featured on the promotional leaflet for the exhibition. Angus Stewart invited Jacob Simon to examine the portrait prior to it going on display. According to Angus Stewart, his invitation to examine the portrait was not taken up and although Jacob Simon did visit the exhibition, he failed to scrutinise the portrait in any detail and gave it only cursory attention. In April 1998 Jacob Simon published a letter in the Times Literary Supplement (TLS) arguing that
the costume dated the portrait to 1800-1810. He wrote that ‘the Gallery has no
axe to grind when it comes to the Rice portrait – only a search for truth based
on sound evidence’. Yet he encouraged Aileen
Ribeiro at the Courtauld Institute to write in opposition to the portrait, he
supported Deirdre Le Faye in her opposition to the picture and he began
researching any evidence which would disprove it was Jane Austen. These letters
can all be viewed in the Heinz Archive at the NPG.

Then, on 18 December
1998, another letter from Jacob Simon was published in the TLS which seemed, on
face value, to finish the argument.

In 1986 the backing of
the portrait had been removed and had revealed a stamp on the linen which read
Wm Legg, High Holbourn 1 Linen. Jacob Simon announced that there was indeed
a William Legg trading as an artists colourman at 163 High Holborn – but that
he was only trading there from 1801 until 1806 - therefore the
canvas must date to after 1801.

Letters immediately
followed in the TLS from supporters of the portrait, pointing out that the
paucity of records for the eighteenth century meant Jacob Simon could not be
certain that there was no William Legg trading in High Holborn prior to this
date. Nevertheless the stamp convinced Richard Walker.

On 15 January 1999 he
wrote to Jacob Simon:

I
have only just got round to reading your letter to the TLS about the Rice
Portrait and hasten to congratulate you on finally scotching this sorry tale.
As evidence the Wm. Legg stamp seems conclusive and, as you say, the
identification with Jane can now be eliminated.

I
do hope this is the last we shall hear about her but I am afraid the opposition
is pretty obstinate and I have no doubt she will surface again in the
millennium.

Into the Millennium - the 2007 AuctionIn 1995, Henry Rice
wanted to send the portrait to the USA for an Austen exhibition. In order to
leave the country, the portrait required an export licence. A temporary export
licence was granted, on the advice of the NPG.

In 2001, Henry again wanted to send the portrait to the USA and approached the NPG. An unsigned draft of a letter to Henry Rice from the NPG, dated 3 August 2001, referred to the Gallery's position 'should you wish to apply for an export licence for your putative portrait of Jane Austen'. The NPG wrote that they were still of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence that the portrait was of Jane Austen, and concluded on the grounds of ‘stylistic features’ and the William Legg stamp on the reverse that 'the evidence is still not sufficiently conclusive and thus the identity of the sitter remains unresolved.'

Another export licence was granted, and this time the licence that was granted was permanent. This export licence remains valid to this day.

'L'amiable Jane silhouette

On 9 November 2004,
Sandy Nairne, Director of the NPG, reaffirmed their position in a letter to Brian
Southam, chairman of the Jane Austen Society, stating that ‘It is not
a portrait that at this time we would wish to pursue for acquisition.’ He added
‘You may have noted that in addition to the sketch by Cassandra, we currently
have on view a silhouette believed to be of Jane Austin [sic] and to have been cut from the life.’ This, despite the fact
that the evidence for the silhouette being of Jane Austen is thinner than the
paper from which it is cut. (The silhouette is no longer on display.)So that, it seemed, was that. The National Portrait Gallery, despite apparently never having closely examined the picture, had decided that the Rice Portrait
was not of Jane Austen and had washed their hands of the picture for good. Henry Rice
was now free to sell the portrait wherever he chose and to whomever he liked.

Which makes what
happened three years later quite extraordinary.

In 2007, Henry Rice put
the portrait up for sale at auction with Christie’s of New York. Christie’s
published a press release on 23 March 2007 describing the portrait as of Jane
Austen by Ozias Humphry. They cited the support of Austen scholar Claudia
Johnson and of Brian Southam, chairman of the Jane Austen Society. Christie’s
concluded:

Christie’s
supports the Rice portrait as a true depiction of Jane Austen and is honored to
have been chosen by the family to organize a public auction – and to publicly
exhibit the painting in New York City.

Christie's, New York

Christie's auction was due to take place on 19 April 2007. The announcement
generated another flurry of interest from the media. It also generated a flurry
of internal emails at the National Portrait Gallery, where there was some
discussion as to how to handle the publicity. On 23 March 2007 the press
officer, Neil Evans, emailed Dr. Lucy Peltz, (Jacob Simon’s colleague and
Curator of 18th Century Collections) and Jacob Simon, asking whether Christie’s
had sought authentication of the portrait since 1994 (when the portrait was
first granted an export licence and was sent to New York). Both confirmed that
they had not been contacted by Christie’s during that time.

Jacob Simon also
commented: ‘The message should be that
we are quite open about the past history but that we do not comment on
portraits while on the market.’

Lucy Peltz wrote on 24 March
2007 - ‘any reiterations of our past position could influence the value of the
painting and the credibility of the auctioneers. She went on to say ‘we feel we
cannot say anything further at this point as our institutional comments could
prejudice the outcome of the sale.’

On 29 March 2007, Neil
Evans sent another internal email explaining that BBC Radio Four’s PM Programme
wanted to do an item on the Jane Austen portrait and wanted the views of the
NPG. Evans reported that he had explained to BBC Radio Four that: ‘it was not our policy to speak about a
portrait coming up for sale where we do not have a current interest.’Jacob Simon replied:‘I would not answer questions relating to
the sale of the portrait which is not our business.’So, everyone seems clear
– the NPG should not and would not comment on a portrait which was on the
market as any such comment could affect the sale. As Lucy Peltz had asserted, a
reiteration of the NPG’s past position could ‘influence the value of the
painting and the credibility of the auctioneers’.

And yet just one week
before the sale was due to take place, Jacob Simon, apparently without
invitation from the auctioneers, did exactly that.

On Thursday 12 April
2007, Jacob Simon emailed
Christie’s Auction House in New York at 16.47 in the afternoon. His email read:

Subject:
Jane Austen

Dear
Mr. Hall

William
Legg is mentioned in the catalogue entry of your forthcoming Old Master
Paintings sale on 19 April of the portrait described as the Rice portrait of
Jane Austen, lot 120. I would like to draw your attention to new research on
William Legg, which is now publicly available as part of the Directory of
artists’ suppliers and colourmen, 1650 -1939 on the Gallery website at
National Portrait Gallery/Research/Artists’ Suppliers/ Directory. The text of
this entry is given below. I propose to communicate this research to the Times
Literary Supplement where previous discussion has taken place on the dating
of the portrait and its impact on the putative claims of the portrait to
represent Jane Austen.

I
am copying this e-mail to Piers Davies

Yours
sincerely

Jacob
Simon

Chief
Curator

National
Portrait Gallery

The research to which
Jacob Simon was referring concerned William Legg of Reading and the birth
records for his children which proved conclusively that Legg was definitely
living in Reading until 1801.

However, Jacob Simon did
not explain in his communication with Christie’s, nor in his article
subsequently published in the TLS, that the stamp on the Rice Portrait differs
from the other known stamps for William Legg of Reading. The Rice stamp reads Wm Legg whereas the other known stamps are for ‘W&J Legg’ and it also spells Holbourn differently, with a 'u'. It is by no means conclusive, therefore, that the stamps belong to the same person.

The stamp on the Rice Portrait (right) is not the same
as the other known stamps for William Legg of Reading

The case for William Legg of Reading being responsible for the linen stamp on the Rice Portrait was thus not as strong as Jacob Simon had suggested. And even if it were, what was
Jacob Simon’s motivation for interfering in a private sale which was nothing to
do with the NPG and contrary to their stated policy of making no comment on a
sale in which they had no current interest?

Jacob Simon must have known that this email put Christie’s
in a very difficult position. If they ignored Simon’s email and the portrait
was sold as a picture of Austen, if it later transpired that it was not as
claimed then – as they had been put on notice of Jacob Simon’s latest research
- any purchaser may well have had a legal case against the auctioneer. But if
they informed Henry Rice of the email, which would inevitably have led to him
cancelling the sale, then this would have resulted in some very awkward
questions being asked as to why the sale had not gone ahead.

Is it not at least possible that Christie’s informed
prospective buyers that to bid on the portrait would not be such a good idea in
the light of this recent revelation?

As it was, Henry Rice knew nothing of the communication
between Jacob Simon and Christie’s New York and the sale went ahead as
scheduled on 19 April 2007. The portrait failed to meet the reserve and did not
sell.

The failure of the 2007
auction was then subsequently used as evidence that the art world did not
believe it to be a portrait of Jane Austen, not least by Jacob Simon himself. Less
than a month after the failed auction, on 4 May 2007, Jacob Simon wrote to the
TLS. His letter opened with: ‘The Rice
portrait of Jane Austen as a girl which recently failed to sell at auction in
New York…’ He did not mention his own involvement, in emailing
Christie’s, yet he was willing, almost immediately, to take advantage of the
failed auction to press his own point of view.

Not long after the
failed New York sale Henry Rice had a heart attack. His wife Anne believes it
was caused by the stress of the failure of the sale. He never fully recovered
and died three years later. Reprehensibly, Deirdre Le Faye then used Henry Rice’s
obituary in The Times to attack his belief that his portrait was
genuinely a portrait of Jane Austen.

It was not until 2013,
following a Freedom of Information request from the Rice family, that Mrs Anne
Rice, now the legal owner of the portrait, became aware for the first time that
Jacob Simon in his capacity as Chief Curator of the NPG, had written an
unsolicited email to Christie’s prior to the 2007 auction. This email has never
been made public until now, although it can be viewed in
the Rice Portrait files at the Heinz Archive of the NPG.

In 2014 the Rice family
complained to the NPG that Jacob Simon’s actions constituted an interference
with a private sale which was nothing to do with the Gallery and none of its
concern.

The Director of the NPG,
Sandy Nairne, responded in an email dated 11 April that ‘the new research
pasted into the e-mail to Christie’s did not in itself directly concern the
Rice portrait, but was about William Legg’.

This is clearly nonsense
– Jacob Simon’s email was headed ‘Jane Austen’ and specifically referred to the portrait of Jane Austen, even quoting the lot number.

Recent developments

Since Henry Rice’s death
in 2010, the fight to prove the portrait is indeed a painting of the young Jane
Austen has been taken up by his widow Anne Rice and members of their family.

But they have been
opposed every step of the way by the NPG.

In 2011 respected art
restorer Eva Schwan, who had spent two years restoring the portrait, sent a
report to the NPG stating she believed the artist to be Ozias Humphry and
showing a photograph of his monogram on the portrait. Sandy Nairne replied that
it was ‘certainly of interest’ and that he would ask for it to be ‘added to the
material in the Heinz Archive and Library.’ An invitation from the Rice family for the NPG to view the portrait while it was at Eva Schwan's studio in Paris had been turned down.

The same year, in August
2011, the NPG issued a statement about the Rice Portrait in which Jacob Simon
stated that the attribution to Ozias Humphry was ‘not tenable’ and that ‘he
worked in a very different style to this portrait’. Yet Richard Walker, an
acknowledged expert on Regency Paintings, had said that ‘It fits very well with
his style of painting.’ Jacob Simon also again referred to the dating of the
costume, citing ‘specialist curators and costume historians’ who ‘widely agree’
on an early 19th century dating ‘as set out by Deirdre Le Faye in her article
on the portrait published in The Book
Collector in 1996.’ Simon also cited the linen stamp, claiming that the existence
of another William Legg was ‘unlikely’.

Signatures on the Emery Walker plate

In 2012, Stephen Cole of
Acumé Forensics confirmed that he detected signatures of Ozias Humphry and words which he read as Jane Austen_7 written
on a glass negative of a photograph of the portrait taken in 1910. Sandy Nairne
wrote that ‘we are skeptical [sic] about the signatures that have allegedly been
found on the 1910 photograph by Emery Walker.’ These photographic plates are
owned by and in the possession of the National Portrait Gallery and yet, as far
as I am aware, they have made no
attempt to verify Acumé’s findings.

In 2013 journalist
Henrietta Foster wrote to Sandy Nairne stating that she was ‘sorry to bring up
the misery that is the Rice portrait again’, and criticised the work of Claudia
Johnson, a long time supporter of the portrait. Foster informed Nairne that she
and Austen scholar Dr Kathryn Sutherland were planning to write a challenge to
the Rice Portrait via the columns of the TLS. The result was the article Brimful of Trickswhich dismissed the findings of Stephen Cole and claimed that the
portrait was a nineteenth century amateur fake. Not one expert, either for or
against the portrait, had ever suggested this before. The article was published
in the TLS in July 2014.

Despite the lack of
forensic analysis offered by the authors of the article, the Foster/Sutherland thesis that the portrait was a fake was endorsed on his blog by Dr Bendor Grosvenor in a post
titled ‘Still, sadly not Jane Austen’. Dr Grosvenor evidently takes some interest in the subject as there are a number of posts on his blog arguing that the Rice Portrait is not a portrait of Jane Austen.

For ten
years, from 2004 until 2014, Bendor Grosvenor worked for the art dealing firm of Philip Mould & Company. Philip Mould was a member of the National Portrait Gallery Development
Board for five years from 2003 until 2007 and is a life patron of the NPG. The NPG has purchased a number of paintings from Philip Mould Ltd over the
years. In the minutes for November 2006 the Trustees expressed some unease
about purchasing a portrait at full price from a business owned by a member of
the NPG Development Board but concluded that there was ‘no formal conflict of
interest’ (although I am not sure how you can have an informal conflict of interest). Two years later, the minutes for
May 2008recorded that ‘Trustees
were particularly concerned about the relationship between the Gallery and
Philip Mould Ltd’. The minutes record that the Chief Curator (Jacob Simon) said that the Gallery's good working relationship with Philip Mould has been to its advantage.

(Both Bendor Grosvenor and Philip Mould (who was given an OBE for services to art in 2005) are now familiar figures on British TV screens, featuring in programmes
such as Antiques Roadshow,Fake or Fortune, The Culture Show and most recently Britain’s Lost Masterpieces.)

Since 2014, my own and
others’ research has shown how closely connected Ozias Humphry was to the
Austen family. We have shown that the costume evidence is flawed and provided
examples of comparable dresses dating from before 1800 and have also
demonstrated that the evidence of the Legg Stamp on the back of the portrait,
so relied upon by Jacob Simon, is far from conclusive. My research has also shown
that Eliza Hall, the recipient of the portrait when it temporarily left the
family, was likely to have known Jane Austen personally.

The available evidence
points towards Ozias Humphry being the artist and Jane Austen the sitter. No
other credible candidate exists.

What is needed now from
the NPG is courage - courage to
admit that mistakes have been made in the past, and that they acted beyond their remit in 2007. Whether they have
this courage remains to be seen. But it should be remembered that the NPG is a
public body, financially supported by the British taxpayer and as such it is governed
by the seven principles ofpublic life -selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty
and leadership.

Will the NPG learn lessons from the past?

It is time for the
National Portrait Gallery to draw a line under this whole sorry story and start
afresh by looking at the evidence impartially and give the Rice Portrait a fair hearing.

Next year is the 200th
anniversary of Jane’s death – wouldn’t it be great if we could celebrate her
life with the conflict over this portrait resolved?

Saturday, 1 October 2016

In Deirdre Le Faye's 2011 edition of Jane Austen's LettersLetter 8, dated Sunday 8 April 1798, is from Jane Austen to Philadelphia (Phylly) Walter. Jane is writing to express her condolences at the death of Phylly's father, William Hampson Walter.

Philadelphia Walter and Jane Austen were both granddaughters of Rebecca Hampson. Rebecca's first husband was Philadelphia's grandfather William Walter; her second husband was Jane Austen's grandfather, William Austen.

William Hampson Walter died at the age of 77 on Good Friday 6 April 1798, after a short illness and buried at the church at Seal the following Thursday. (I am indebted to the excellent resource maintained by Ronald Dunning, a descendant of Francis Austen, for this information. You can read an interview with Ronald Dunning on the blog Jane Austen's World HERE).

We know that the Austens were immediately informed of the sad event because the reply from Jane Austen is written only two days later, on Easter Sunday.

Jane wrote: As Cassandra is at present from home, You must accept from my pen, our sincere Condolence on the melancholy Event which Mrs Humphries Letter announced to my Father this morning.

In the Biographical Index Le Faye records: 'Humphry family: Revd William Humphry was the incumbent of Seal, Kent, and consequently his family were neighbours of the Walters; it was no doubt his wife who wrote to the Austens in 1798 to announce the death of William Hampson Walter.'
Deirdre Le Faye does not mention however that Revd William Humphry was the brother of artist Ozias Humphry.

William Humphry had been Vicar of St Peters, Kemsing and Seal since 1770. The living was in the gift of the Duke of Dorset who was also a patron of Ozias Humphry and it was Ozias who had petitioned the Duke to grant his brother the living. William Humphry's incumbency lasted for forty-five years until his death in July 1816.

William and Ozias Humphry were very close and Ozias frequently visited his brother at Seal. In June 1782 Ozias wrote to his brother about the impending cricket match at Sevenoaks Vine between Kent and Hampshire: Dear Brother, I trouble you with this to beg to know for certain from you when the great cricket day and Ball will be at Sevenoaks, because it is my Intention to come and to bring with me Mr. Jackson of Exeter for a day or two.
It was William Humphry's wife Elizabeth Humphry who wrote to the Austens to inform them of the death of George Austen's step-brother in 1798 and which prompted the reply by Jane Austen.

Elizabeth Humphry's maiden name was Woodgate. She married William Humphry in 1778. The Woodgates were, like the Austens, a long established Kentish family living in Tonbridge. You can read more about the Woodgate family HERE.

In 1787 Elizabeth's brother William Woodgate inherited Somerhill House on the outskirts of the town. Built for Richard de Burgh in 1611, the library in the south wing was the second longest room in Kent, surpassed only by the Gallery at Knole House, the Duke of Dorset's residence at nearby Sevenoaks. By the time William Woodgate inherited the house, it was sorely in need of restoration; Horace Walpole who visited in the 1750s or 1760s said 'the house is little better than a farm, but has been an excellent one and is entire though out of repair.'

On the same excursion, Turner also visited and sketched nearby Rosehill Park in Sussex, home of 'Mad Jack' John Fuller. (It is noteworthy that the previous owner of Somerhill House was named 'de Burgh' and that Rosehill Park sounds so similar to 'Rosings Park'. John Fuller was a close friend of Hester Thrale, later 'my dear Mrs Piozzi' as Austen referred to her; he unsuccessfully proposed to her daughter Susannah Thrale.)

William Woodgate married Frances Hooker in 1769. The Hookers were another prominent family in Tonbridge; Frances Hooker's father, John Hooker owned Tonbridge Castle. He bought the castle in 1736 and as soon as he bought it he began dismantling it and selling of pieces of land. You can read HERE how he sold one plot known as the Lords Garden in 1740, half to Francis Austen of Sevenoaks (Jane's great-uncle Francis) and half to the Woodgates and how closely the Woodgates and Austens in Tonbridge were linked. Francis Austen acted as attorney to at least one member of the Woodgate family.

Tonbridge Castle 1808

Frances Hooker's sister Mary Hooker had married Henry Austen, George Austen's cousin, in 1763. Henry was five years George's senior - he was still at Tonbridge school when George Austen started attending there aged nine. Both entered the clergy with George Austen following on from his cousin Henry first as curate of Shipbourne and later into the living of Steventon when Francis Austen gave Henry the living at West Wickham. Jane Austen's mother and father visited them at Tonbridge in 1783. In another link between these families, a house on Tonbridge High Street known as Fosse Bank (thought to be number 182) belonged to Francis Austen of Sevenoaks who sold it to Thomas Hooker in 1780. Thomas in turn gave it to his brother-in-law, Henry Austen. You can read more about the Austen links to Tonbridge HERE

When William Woodgate died in 1809 he left bequests of five guineas to various friends to buy memorial rings, including Revd William Humphry and Henry Austen. Willliam Woodgate died a wealthy man; according to a rather mercenary letter Ozias Humphry subsequently wrote to Lord Clarendon; he said of William Woodgate: 'by his frugality and skill in agricultural concerns he enlarged his original fortune very considerably, insomuch that at his Death the Property he possessed is estimated at full three hundred thousand pounds.' Ozias Humphry after outlining the comfortable situation of the various members of William Woodgate's family, concluded with: 'By this it must appear that I have many inducements to visit my Family in Kent.'.

The families of Austen, Woodgate and Hooker were closely linked through marriage, land ownership and profession, and the Humphrys formed part of this circle. Ozias Humphry knew the Austens and had painted Francis Austen in 1780 as a commission for the Duke of Dorset.

Francis Austen wrote to Ozias Humphry on 11 July 1780 to tell him how pleased he was.

Dear Sir,

The Duke of Dorset does me great honour in
wishing to have my picture and as tis to be your hand I feel myself very happy
with the thought of this being in his Grace’s collection and will submit myself
to sit for you whenever will be convenient to yourself. I mean after this weeke
as I returne home from Maidstone on Friday or Saturday and don’t know of any
particular engagements that will interfere. I shall have company at my house on
Monday but not till about or near dining time and I know of no other engagements.
I am

This family tree demonstrates how closely these families are intertwined:

We know therefore that Jane Austen wrote to Ozias Humphry's sister-in-law, that the Humphrys knew the Kent branch of the Austen family as well as the Woodgates and that Ozias Humphry was staying in the area at the date the portrait is thought to have been painted, 1788. These close connections of course are not conclusive evidence that Ozias Humphry is the artist responsible for the Rice Portrait. But they certainly point in that direction.